Abstract
Recently, successful predictions using machine learning (ML) algorithms have been reported in various fields. However, in traumatic brain injury (TBI) cohorts, few studies have examined modern ML algorithms. To develop a simple ML model for TBI outcome prediction, we conducted a performance comparison of nine algorithms: ridge regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, random forest, gradient boosting, extra trees, decision tree, Gaussian naïve Bayes, multi-nomial naïve Bayes, and support vector machine.
Fourteen feasible parameters were introduced in the ML models, including age, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), abnormal pupillary response, major extracranial injury, computed tomography (CT) findings, and routinely collected laboratory values (glucose, C-reactive protein [CRP], and fibrin/fibrinogen degradation products [FDP]). Data from 232 patients with TBI were randomly divided into a training sample (80%) for hyperparameter tuning and validation sample (20%). The bootstrap method was used for validation. Random forest demonstrated the best performance for in-hospital poor outcome prediction and ridge regression for in-hospital mortality prediction: the mean statistical measures were 100% sensitivity, 72.3% specificity, 91.7% accuracy, and 0.895 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC); and 88.4% sensitivity, 88.2% specificity, 88.6% accuracy, and 0.875 AUC, respectively. Based on the feature selection method using the tree-based ensemble algorithm, age, Glasgow Coma Scale, fibrin/fibrinogen degradation products, and glucose were identified as the most important prognostic factors for poor outcome and mortality. Our results indicate the relatively good predictive performance of modern ML for TBI outcome. Further external validation is required for more heterogeneous samples to confirm our results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
